This
matter is before the Court on Defendant Gustavo Romero-Mendez
a/k/a Gustavo Romero's (“Romero”), Motion to
Suppress (Filing No. 34). Romero is charged with
violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(A)(vi)-possession with intent to distribute
fentanyl. He asserts that his vehicle was stopped without
probable cause, the stop was unreasonably long, and the
search of his vehicle was without probable cause, justifying
suppression of evidence found during the search. On April 23,
2018, an evidentiary hearing was held on Romero's Motion.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(d), the
Court now states its findings of fact and conclusions of law
and determines that the Motion to Suppress should be
denied.

I.
FINDINGS OF FACT

For
approximately seven years, Officer David Glover of the
Richmond, Indiana Police Department (“Officer
Glover”) has been assigned to the Pro-Active Criminal
Enforcement unit (“PACE”).[1] While conducting
PACE patrol On August 22, 2016, Officer Glover received
information from Deputy Nick Ernstes (“Deputy
Ernstes”) from the Hancock County Sheriff's
Department, who had received a call from Indiana State Police
Trooper Brad Smith (“Trooper Smith”) that they
might want to look at a certain vehicle when it comes by.
Officer Glover was given a description and the California
license plate number of the vehicle. He ran the license plate
number of the vehicle through the system to check for border
crossings and noticed the vehicle had made numerous border
crossings within an eight month period. Soon thereafter,
Officer Glover observed Romero's silver Mazda 6 sedan
with the particular license plate number, driving on
Interstate 70 near Exit 131.

Romero
disputes issues of material fact with respect to the
Government's briefing and officers' affidavits;
however, several dashboard camera (“dash cam”)
videos of the traffic stop, canine search and seizure exist
and the Court is able to resolve any factual disputes using
the video evidence (Filing No. 39) and testimony
from the hearing.

Officer
Glover entered the roadway behind the silver vehicle and at a
point, Romero's vehicle is following closely behind a
tractor-trailer. Officer Glover pulled Romero's vehicle
over on the ramp for Exit 131. Officer Glover approached the
vehicle, and observed that Romero and his passenger, Susana
Orozco (“Orozco”) were the only persons in the
vehicle. Officer Glover noticed a strong odor of air
fresheners inside of the vehicle. After asking for
Romero's driver's license, registration, and proof of
insurance, Officer Glover requested that Romero step out of
the vehicle and asked for Orozco's identification.
Officer Glover asked Orozco several questions, including
where she and Romero were traveling, where she lives, and
what was her relationship to Romero. Orozco told Officer
Glover that they were traveling to Middletown, Ohio, that she
lives in Oakland, California, and that she and Romero are
friends and are possibly dating. She further indicated that
she has not known Romero for a very long time.

Once
Officer Glover completed his questioning of Orozco, he went
back to Romero and asked him to exit the vehicle and sit in
the front seat of his patrol car. As Romero exited his
vehicle, he dropped what was later determined to be a
methamphetamine pipe onto the ground by the driver's door
and is seen on the video kicking the pipe under the car.

While
sitting in the patrol car, Officer Glover began to process
Romero's information on his laptop computer and he asked
Romero several of the same questions he had asked Orozco.
Romero initially indicated that he and Orozco were heading
toward Middletown, but he corrected himself and said that
they were traveling to Daytona, and again corrected himself
saying Dayton, Ohio to visit one of his friends.
Additionally, Romero stated that he and Orozco are just
friends but that they have known each other for a while. When
Officer Glover asked Romero where Orozco is from, he
responded that she is from San Francisco rather than Oakland.
Romero volunteered that he is married but that he does not
talk about his wife with Orozco. While processing information
on his laptop computer, Officer Glover continued to engage in
“small talk” asking Romero questions such as what
he does for a living and how long they plan to stay in
Dayton. After several minutes of questioning Romero, Officer
Glover explained that he stopped him because he had been
following the tractor trailer too closely and that Indiana
recommends leaving about two or three seconds between cars
while driving on the Interstate.

Approximately
thirteen minutes after Officer Glover initially stopped
Romero's vehicle, Deputy Ernstes arrived on the scene
with his K-9 partner, “Manni”. Officer Glover
exited his patrol car to talk to Deputy Ernstes about what he
had observed. Officer Glover specifically indicated that
Orozco and Romero had conflicting answers as to where they
were traveling and where Orozco was from and noted that there
was approximately a nine-year age difference between them,
leading Officer Glover to believe the couple does not
actually know one another. Based on these observations,
Officer Glover asked Deputy Ernstes to conduct a dog sniff
with Manni around Romero's vehicle, as he sensed criminal
activity. Officer Glover then returned to his patrol car and
continued to process and complete standard checks using
Romero's information. Officer Glover requested standard
information from Romero, such as his height and Social
Security number and continued to make “small
talk”.

Sergeant
Jim Goodwin (“Sgt. Goodwin”), another member of
the PACE unit, from the Henry County Sheriff's Department
arrived on the scene with his canine “Cain, ” but
they did not participate in the dog sniff analysis. While
Officer Glover remained in his police car with Romero, Deputy
Ernstes guided Manni to Romero's vehicle to conduct a dog
sniff analysis. During this process, Manni showed interest in
a Kleenex on the roadway near the driver's side door, but
Deputy Ernstes directed Manni away from the Kleenex. Deputy
Ernstes explained that he directed Manni away because the
Kleenex was an unknown hazard. Upon closer inspection, prior
to any search of the vehicle, Deputy Ernstes located a glass
pipe commonly used for taking methamphetamine, underneath the
car by the driver's door, near the area where the Kleenex
was observed. After guiding Manni around the vehicle several
times, Deputy Ernstes gave a thumbs up sign to Officer Glover
and reported that Manni showed a great deal of interest to
the trunk of Romero's vehicle and near the driver's
door.

Based
upon his belief that the dog sniff resulted in a positive
indication of drugs and Deputy Ernstes' discovery of a
methamphetamine pipe, Officer Glover handcuffed Romero and
allowed him to remain seated in the passenger seat of his
patrol car. Officer Glover then began to search through the
trunk of the vehicle and discovered more than two kilograms
of fentanyl. Once Officer Glover confirmed that drugs were
found in the vehicle, Romero was informed of his
Miranda rights and arrested for possession of
narcotics. Thereafter, Romero made certain admissions.

II.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In his
Motion to Suppress, Romero asserts that the evidence obtained
against him as a result of the traffic stop and the
subsequent search of his vehicle violated the Fourth and
Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution
(Filing No. 34; Filing No. 35).
Specifically, he argues that (1) Officer Glover lacked
probable cause to conduct the traffic stop; (2) the traffic
stop was unreasonably prolonged; (3) the search of his
vehicle was not supported by probable cause; and (4) his
statements cannot be considered when determining the
existence of probable cause or otherwise used against him.
Id. In contrast, the Government contends that the
video of the traffic stop demonstrates Office Glover had
sufficient probable cause to conduct a traffic stop, that the
traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged, and that Officer
Glover developed reasonable suspicion of a crime independent
of the traffic violation to justify the deployment of Manni
and the subsequent search of Romero's vehicle (Filing
No. 37).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A.
Need ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.